HomeMy WebLinkAboutAgenda - 04-03-2012 - 5aORANGE COUNTY
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
ACTION AGENDA ITEM ABSTRACT
Meeting Date: April 3, 2012
Action Agenda
Item No. 5-a
SUBJECT: MINUTES
DEPARTMENT:
PUBLIC HEARING: (Y/N) No
ATTACHMENT(S):
Draft Minutes
INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donna Baker, 245-2130
PURPOSE: To correct and/or approve the minutes as submitted by the Clerk to the Board as
listed below:
February 14, 2012
BOCC Work Session
BACKGROUND: In accordance with 153A-42 of the General Statutes, the Governing Board
has the legal duty to approve all minutes that are entered into the official journal of the Board's
proceedings.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: NONE
RECOMMENDATION(S): The Manager recommends the Board approve minutes as
presented or as amended.
1 .
1 DRAFT
2
3
4 MINUTES
5 ORANGE COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS
6 WORK SESSION
7 February 14, 212
8 7:00pm
9
10 The Orange County Board of Commissioners met for a Transit Work Session on Tuesday
11 February 14, 2012 at 7:00 p.m. at the Southern Human Services Center, in Chapel Hill, N.C.
12
13 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Chair Bernadette Pelissier and Commissioners
14 Valerie Foushee, Alice M. Gordon, Barry Jacobs, Pam Hemminger, Earl McKee, and Steve
15 Yuhasz
16 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT:
17 COUNTY ATTORNEY PRESENT: John Roberts
18 COUNTY STAFF PRESENT: County Manager Frank Clifton, Assistant County Manager
19 Michael Talbert and Clerk to the Board Donna S. Baker (All other staff members will be
20 identified appropriately below)
21
22 Chair Pelissier said that the invited guests are John Hodges Copple from Triangle J
23 Council of Governments and staff from Triangle Transit, along with Mayor Kleinschmidt from the
24 Town of Chapel Hill. She said if the % cent sales tax was going to be on the ballot in the fall,
25 then some decisions need to be made very soon. This is the opportunity to cover the big picture
26 of transit.
27
28 1_ Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA): Overview - What's Behind Us and What's
29 Ahead?
30 Planning Director Craig Benedict did a summary of this item. He said that there was a
31 very productive meeting on February 7th where the Board of County Commissioners gave
32 direction to Commissioner Gordon, the MPO representative, about the Locally Preferred
33 Alternative. The recommendation was for the approval of the LPA that had the end points at
34 UNC on the south and Alston Avenue on the north with light rail transit in that corridor. This
35 recommendation will be proceeding to Triangle Transit tomorrow.
36 He pointed out some of the aspects from the Triangle Transit PowerPoint that explains
37 the LPA.
38 Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA)
39 - A technical definition of a transit project required to apply for federal funds
40 - Describes a detailed goal; does not specify timing
41 - Must be approved by Transportation Advisory Committee (TAC) of DCHC-MPO
42 - Part of a process required by FEDERAL law
43
44 Durham and Orange County Bus & Rail Plans
45 - Specifies revenues, costs, borrowing, financial assumptions (inflation, sales tax
46 growth) and timing of new/expanded bus and rail services to 2035
2
1 - Orange plan must be approved by Orange BOCC, DCHC-MPO TAC, and Triangle
2 Transit Board of Trustees (Durham has completed these steps)
3 - Part of a process required by STATE law
4
5
6 The financial plan needs to be approved by the Board of Commissioners and the two
7 MPOs. Even though the LPA was approved it does not mean that the County needs to approve
8 the financial plan or put this on the ballot. If the Board does proceed with a referendum, it
9 needs to keep up to date with the changing conditions in the financial plan that will last until
10 2035. Revenues should go up and costs will also go up. There are a lot of moving parts.
11 Chair Pelissier said that her understanding is that if they do not put the sales tax on the
12 ballot that this will be a negative for the New Start Application and Craig Benedict said yes.
13 Commissioner Gordon said that she did check with the MPO today and the BRT on 15-
14 501 is in the long-range transportation plan for 2035. This area is in Chapel Hill and the County
15 will need to work closely with Chapel Hill.
16 Commissioner McKee said that because there has been mention that BRT can be
17 pursued on the 15-501 corridors, are there figures of what the total cost would be if all the
18 options were implemented outside of the light rail component.
19 Craig Benedict said that there are no figures for BRT in the 15-501 corridor. In the
20 Martin Luther King corridor, there was $19 million put aside.
21 Chair Pelissier suggested moving on, unless there were some implications to what has
22 already been approved.
23
24 2. Shared Benefits
25 i a. Shared Benefits Memo of 5/10/11 from John Hodges-Copple, Triangle J
26 Council of Governments (Attachment 2)
27 John Hodges-Copple made reference to his handout, and indicated that one part was
28 one page and the other one was 10 pages. He said that the technical experts were trying to
29 provide information so that local officials could decide where and what to fund. He said that
30 local governments are trying to put money in one of three bins. In Orange County, one of those
31 bins was the light rail investment. Another bin was MLK Parkway BRT of$19 million. The other
32 bin was bus — everything from local routes, to regional routes, to human service agency
33 transportation. The trick is to line these things up in Orange County and Durham County. He
34 said that Orange County needs to sit down with Durham County and figure out how to allocate
35 local revenues to the shared investment. He made reference to page 13 of the abstract and the
36 "Other Benefits", which are shown below:
37
38 Environmental Benefits
39 - Reduced traffic congestion
40 - Reduced fuel consumption
41 - Better air quality
42 - Reduced sprawl and more efficient pattern of development at the regional scale
43 - Conservation of open space
44 - Shorter trip lengths due to more compact development
I
3
1 Economic and Fiscal Benefits
2 - Reduced or deferred road and parking facility costs
3 - Economic development benefits from agglomeration efficiencies and increased
4 productivity
5 - Increased property values
6 - Increased property tax revenues
7 - Ability to reuse/redevelop property currently used for parking (e.g. Friday Center lot)
8
9 Social Benefits
10 - Improved social cohesion through positive interactions among people in a community
11 - Improved fitness and health as a result of increased walking and biking to access
12 transit
13 - Reduced traffic accidents
14 - Improved transportation options, particularly for non-drivers
15 - Reduced consumer transportation costs
16 - Improved access to job opportunities for workers, increased labor market shed for
17 employers; improved ability to retain workers concerned with transportation costs
18 and reliability
19 - Neighborhood revitalization and better links between workforce housing and job sites
20 - Expanded market access for customers and clients (e.g. to UNC clinics)
21
22 Craig Benedict reviewed some maps and pointed out the tax benefits of the
23 transportation development.
24 John Copple-Hodges said that that the increase in value does not just come from new
25 construction, but also for existing structures. There would likely be increased sales.
26 Frank Clifton said now that the Board has made the decision on the NC 54 route, the
27 next decision is how to cost share with Durham County.
28 Commissioner Yuhasz asked about the assumptions on the ridership numbers and the
29 modeling that was done.
30 John Copple-Hodges said that all of the modeling is based on the actual adopted 2035
31 plan.
32 Chair Pelissier said that at their next meeting, there will be a presentation on the NC 54
33 corridor.
34
35 b. Orange County Economic Development Benefits
36 Craig Benedict said that the Orange County Finance department put together some
37 information (hand out) on sales tax revenues for fiscal years 2006-12. The sales tax stream is
38 very critical because it will be the source for the light rail. Orange County has to find a way to
39 bolster sales tax opportunities. This is why the shared benefit analysis is being considered.
40
41 3. Future Development and Redevelopment Plans for 15-501 Corridor
42 Chapel Hill Mayor Mark Kleinschmidt made a PowerPoint presentation, which mostly
43 consisted of maps. He pointed out all of the areas on the maps. He spoke about the many
44 areas that will be redeveloped for economic development.
4
1
2 Coordination of Land Use and Transportation Planning: Chapel Hill's Experience
3 Chapel Hill's Long Standing integration of land use and transportation planning
4
5 -1989 Comprehensive Plan
6
7 -1992 Southern Small Area Plan—area now known as Southern Village.
8
9 -1998 US 15-501 Major Investment Study.
10
11 US 15-501/Fordham Blvd selected for bus rapid transit
12
13 Light Rail not selected due to:
14
15 -Cost of implementation
16
17 -Impact on traffic operation of US 15-501
18
19 -Walk access to stations
20
21 -Limited redevelopment potential adjacent to proposed LRT stations
22
23
24 -2000 Comprehensive Plan
25
26 -2008 Northern Area Small Area Plan
27
28 •2008 2035 Long Range Transit Plan
29
30 -2010 Ephesus Church Small Area Plan and Traffic Analysis
31
32 Proposed Framework Plan
33
34 -Increased Connectivity Throughout
35
36 -Create Greenspace System
37
38 -Create Mixed-Use Nodes
39
40 -Multi-Family Residential Development
41
42 -Increased Transit Presence and Facilities
43
44 -Roadway Operational Improvements
45
46 -Flexibility by Quadrant
47
48
49 •2011 NC54 Corridor Study
50
5
1
2 Commissioner Gordon asked what level of investment for BRT had Chapel Hill
3 estimated.
4 Mayor Kleinschmidt said that they understand that funding is a challenge for any
5 transportation plan. They have developed tools to help meet those funding needs. One of the
6 tools is to require transit contributions by the developer.
7 Commissioner Gordon said that Orange County has been trying to work more closely
8 with the town partners. She asked about the best way for the County and Chapel Hill to work
9 together on a long-range plan regarding transportation investment.
10 Mayor Kleinschmidt said that this is a really good opportunity to begin working together.
11 Commissioner Jacobs asked if phase one of Hillmont was thought of as transit oriented.
12 He said that if the County were to choose C-2, then there would be more of an emphasis on that
13 development.
14 Mayor Kleinschmidt said that it was adopted as a master plan in three phases. He has
15 not had specific discussions about how to accommodate this. There is an awareness that the
16 plan will have to accommodate the station.
17 Commissioner Hemminger asked about the discussion regarding the Friday Center and
18 the park and ride lot there. She asked where all of these people would park once this is
19 redeveloped.
20 Mayor Kleinschmidt said that there would be a dispersion of park and ride throughout the
21 different transit stations.
22 Commissioner McKee said that he is very concerned about moving too fast without
23 knowing all of the implications. He asked about the projected population increases and the
24 effects of light rail. He asked about the possibility of vertical development.
25 Mayor Kleinschmidt agreed that vertical development should be discussed.
26 Commissioner Yuhasz made reference to the NC 54 Corridor and asked if there was
27 anything specific about the plans that require light rail rather than bus rapid transit. Mayor
28 Kleinschmidt said that they have planned for light rail for this area. These developments were
29 designed to be used with light rail and modified bus.
30 Chair Pelissier asked if Chapel Hill would consider doing BRT in the 15-501 corridor
31 versus doing it on MILK. She said that the County Commissioners have not had this discussion
32 as a board yet and asked if it was something they would like to consider.
33 Mayor Kleinschmidt said that he would like to get the input of UNC officials on this, since
34 the University is one of the most important partners.
35
36 4. Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) and Light Rail Transit (LRT) Comparison from Triangle
37 Transit/Durham-Orange County Corridor Alternatives Analysis (Volume One: Detailed of
38 Definitions of Alternative Technical Report, July 2011 page 3 -45 Table 3-25 Summary of
39 Detailed Alternatives Evaluation and page 2- 42 & 2-45 Table 2-15, 2035 Segments or Areas
40 with VIC Ratios at or over Capacity)
41
42 Craig Benedict said that the content of Mayor Kleinschmidt's discussion covered a lot of
43 this item.
44 Patrick McDonough from Triangle Transit made a PowerPoint presentation.
6
1 Triangle Regional Transit Program
2
3 Orange County Transit Plan
4
5 February 14, 2012
6 Orange County: HOME
7 Orange County: Population Distribution
8
9
10 Key Point: Rural and Urban Townships
11 Have Many Transportation Needs in Common
12 - Many residents work at either UNC or Duke
13 Focus: Mebane-Hillsborough-Durham Route and Route 420
14 Park & Ride: TCRP (Transit Cooperative Research Program) Report 95
15 "The majority of park-and ride users typically come from within 5 miles and more than 80
16 percent travel less than 10 miles to their facility."
17
18 Different for UNC Workers: 58% drive more than 10 miles to their Park& Ride lot
19 Source: UNC
20 Campus Commuting Study, 2010
21
22 - It is estimated that 90-95% of Orange County lives within the Park & Ride catchment
23 areas
24
25 Durham-Orange Corridor Technology:
26 Light Rail Transit vs Bus Rapid Transit
27
28 Operating Costs: Bus vs. Rail, National Experience
29 Economic Development, National Experience
30 Can BRT be done cheaper than projected in AA?
31 Speed Is Expensive. Lower cost= lower benefits.
32 Some "BRT" projects are not at all "rapid transit"
33 Cleveland, OH Euclid Corridor (Source: ITDP 2011)
34 $7 million /mile; Average speed: 12.5 mph
35
36 Los Angeles Metro Orange Line
37 $28 million/ mile; Average speed: 18 mph
38 Proposed Durham-Orange BRT-Low Alternative
7
1 $47 million/mile; Average speed: 24.5 mph
2
3 Proposed Durham-Orange BRT-High Alternative
4 $55 million / mile; Average speed: 26.7 mph (LRT= 29.6 mph)
5 Final Observations:
6 BRT vs. LRT
7 LRT Costs more than BRT-High; Cost premium to Orange County plan is approximately $25 -
8 $30 million over the life of the plan
9 For extra investment, Orange County receives
10 - Faster end-to-end travel times
11 - More reliable travel times
12 - Stronger track record of influencing land use/development
13 - Better long-term operating cost efficiency per mile and per trip
14 - Electric propulsion and less reliance on foreign oil
15 - Leveraging 3.5 miles of Orange County investment into a 17-mile system from
16 Durham to Chapel Hill
17
18
19 Questions/Discussion
20
21 Commissioner McKee made reference to the slide on catchment areas and said that just
22 because the park and ride is there it does not necessarily mean that people will use it, unless
23 there is something driving it, such as high gas prices and congested traffic. He asked what kind
24 of traffic congestion would drive people to use park and ride.
25 Patrick McDonough said that there is a model that is based on a "misery index" of traffic
26 congestion and convenience, etc. One of the tools they use to monitor this is a survey.
27 Commissioner McKee said that he is very leery of spending this much money on a long-
28 term project without having all of the factors reviewed.
29 Commissioner Jacobs pointed out that Duke is opening a new hospital next year and is
30 not adding any parking.
31 Commissioner Jacobs asked if the Board has discussed all of the issues raised about
32 impacts on New Hope Creek.
33 Patrick McDonough said that from Triangle Transit's perspective, they will be talking
34 about it in the next phase of study.
35 Commissioner Jacobs said that he would like the Board of County Commissioners to
36 discuss this as well in the next phase.
37 Commissioner Jacobs made reference to an article in the News and Observer from the
38 John Locke Foundation regarding public transit. He asked if anyone was going to write a
39 response to this.
8
1 David King said that Triangle Transit intends to respond. The report is 76 pages and is
2 full of data, some of which is correct and some of which is not. Triangle Transit is working with
3 David Cook of Wake County and CAMPO to produce a comprehensive response. He said that
4 David Cook is going around to all municipalities to make presentations on the Wake County
5 plan.
6 Commissioner Jacobs said that it is important to have both sides articulated equally and
7 as close together as possible.
8
9 5. Orange County Bus and Rail Investment Plan: Financial Plan Elements
10 Craig Benedict said that this is a product of bus and rail and other categories. There are
11 26,000 people that commute out of Orange County and 23,000 that come into Orange County.
12 Orange County also has 16,000 people that commute into Durham County and about 9,000
13 come from Durham into Orange County.
14
15 6. Next Steps
16 a. Passenger Rail- Hillsborough Station
17 Chair Pelissier said that the Board had petitions from Hillsborough about a possible
18 Hillsborough station and this needs to be addressed at the next intergovernmental meeting.
19 b. Timeline—Other Issues
20 Chair Pelissier made reference to the timeline from December and said that the Board
21 said that it wanted to make a decision about putting the referendum on the ballot in March or
22 April. She does not think that the Board is ready for this. It can still be done in May.
23 C. Interlocal Agreements—3
24 d. Referendum Deadline
25 Chair Pelissier asked if the Board wanted to have the draft agreements in place before
26 voting to put this on the ballot.
27 The Board agreed by consensus to have draft agreements. Commissioner Jacobs did
28 not have an opinion about it.
29
30 Chair Pelissier asked if the Board needed more information on the bus plan.
31 Commissioner Yuhasz said that he felt he had enough information without additional
32 information, but he is not comfortable with this plan at this point.
33 Commissioner Hemminger said that until the Board discusses something about the
34 financial plan, she will not be comfortable.
35 Commissioner Jacobs said that he felt fairly comfortable with the plan. The reason that
36 he did not have an opinion on having a draft agreement in place is because he thinks that they
37 can work on the general outline of an agreement, but it is optimistic to think that three
38 agreements could be nailed down in the time necessary. He said that he would like a little more
39 information about how the Durham City/Chapel Hill Future Municipal Agreement will work. He
40 would like this in writing.
41 Wib Gulley said that this line is already part of Chapel Hill. Mayor Kleinschmidt said that
42 Chapel Hill has annexed all of the portions that it can plan for.
43
9
1 Commissioner Foushee said that she is comfortable with her knowledge of the plan but
2 until the Board sees what a draft interlocal or financial plan looks like, they will not be as
3 comfortable with the plan until they know about the cost sharing of this plan. She said that the
4 Board needs to know how the interlocal agreements are implemented and who will be
5 responsible for what.
6 Commissioner McKee said that he is adamantly opposed to bringing this to the public to
7 consider a referendum for a 'h-cent sales tax until many if these unknowns are discussed and
8 worked out.
9 Commissioner Gordon said that she wants to be very clear about the financials of the
10 plan. She also wanted to know more about the investments in BRT.
11 Chair Pelissier suggested that in agenda review, that a plan be developed of the public
12 hearings and decisions. She suggested having a public hearing on both ends of the County.
13
14 A motion was made by Commissioner Jacobs, seconded by Commissioner Foushee to
15 adjourn the meeting at 9:43 PM.
16 VOTE: UNANIMOUS
17
18 Bernadette Pelissier, Chair
19
20 Donna S. Baker, CMC
21 Clerk to the Board
22